I agree, but michaelcampbell's point seemed to be: why learn a language for its ubiquity, when more commonly used languages seem to be just as ubiquitous? So, I focused on how they're not that ubiquitous.
I see what you mean. I guess what I was trying to say is that my position is close to that of michaelcampbell's, and that I wanted to emphasize how little portability is sacrificed by adopting this position on most environments one will ever work in.
Comments
I agree, but michaelcampbell's point seemed to be: why learn a language for its ubiquity, when more commonly used languages seem to be just as ubiquitous? So, I focused on how they're not that ubiquitous.
I see what you mean. I guess what I was trying to say is that my position is close to that of michaelcampbell's, and that I wanted to emphasize how little portability is sacrificed by adopting this position on most environments one will ever work in.